What part of - I don't know the first thing about Lame Sim Shit - don't you understand?

Just because you don't know anything about him doesn't mean your opinion is neutral... it's clearly not and there is obviosly something about him that rustles your jimmies. I don't see why that's so hard for you to admit.

What part of - I don't know the first thing about Lame Sim Shit - don't you understand?

Just because you don't know anything about him doesn't mean your opinion is neutral... it's clearly not and there is obviosly something about him that rustles your jimmies. I don't see why that's so hard for you to admit.

Who is "him"? No my opinion is not neutral - I don't bloody have one! How fucking stupid can you be?

as for my 1st post on CF I chose this thread to add some thoughts on the subject of Miles Mathis, as for my knowledge of physics his discoveries in this science of physics fundamentally change many aspects.

I read this thread from its first post , with my own agenda about it, and it seems important to mention the following: when quoting people's work and thus "putting words in people's mouth" , it should be made clear where the quote came from and to properly quote those selected author's words. This is on the "pi=4" topic, which as much as I read this thread, is pretty much one and single physics topic that is thrown in here when discussing Mathis' persona - based on alleged fact. Where as the very introduction text of Mathis' paper on the same subject says, quote :

Ergo, we don't get squared circles nor does it imply the extinction of π , as even Mathis dramatically labels that specific paper. Moreover , he later on used it on already known "anomalies" and existing data to show how/why it relates to the reality. I don't want to post any links to his remaining (and extremely large) scientific opus, it does not add to my credibility - I just wanted to point to an important moment which occurs if we take words out of the context they were written in.

On 99% of subjects I do not make my judgements on anything else that facts. If facts are not there, then most surely, there are few or many secondary markers that , when put together, can point to a fact. If even that is not sufficient, there is logic left to put all the pieces together so that it all makes sense.

What is most certainly fact about Mathis:- his scientific work is intuitive and consistent as you progress through it,- he goes way back in time and physics theory to firstly understand and then disintegrate the existing understanding to its most elemental factors - which led him to discover , among many other things, that π=4 in kinematic situations,- showing that gravity is an actual force (not explaining it) and separating it from the elemental E/M field , is what is a game-changer when considering mechanics of our universe, and this represents the foundations of his whole theory,

I personally learned a lot from him, not in the way that I should disregard all my previous knowledge and experiences in physics, more like how to explain and understand everything in a more proper way. I.e. his findings in physics regarding separation of gravity field from E/M field seem to be in connection to reality more than it can be said for existing MSM physics theory. At least that's what I concluded after a 1-year long of (amateur) study of his physics opus, after all this is a fact : when Newton was around, E/M field was not yet attributed any proper form in physics science. How could he possibly know about it? Did he realise the mix of two when dealing with observational findings and experiments? I do not belive so, finally somebody (Mathis) came around and took all those back to the scratch -> and , as it seems, found a logical way to separate G and E/M field.

I've read quite some of his non-science papers as well and the most obvious fact (for my viewpoint) he clearly and repeatedly shows how very often main protagonists of fakery - are of Semitic origins. Jews or crypto-jews , whatever the proper naming is, seem to be navigating humanity from God-knows when on. I was never either nationalistic or abusive to anybody based on his religion, but there seem to be people that are "more chosen" then the rest of us.... and it made me re-think many connected thoughts. Not that Mathis was/is the first to notice and write about it, but it occurred to me mostly when dealing with Mathis' research.

As you can see, I mostly judge Mathis on his scientific papers as there is more weight in reality, at least from my viewpoint. Calling somebody a shill or to be misleading on purpose - I believe time will show it all, I will never forget how my "champions" were falling, one by one, and they still continue to do so. Will Mathis be among them? Nobody seems to know - personally, as much as I care and as much it can't be denied - Mathis is doing an extensive research and has showed many aspects of fakery in so many fields, that I cannot remember anybody else who did the same. This is why I respect this man.

My intention was not to choose side in this. If I hurt anybody's feelings, so be it.

Let me just add to clarify my background : I am not a physicist by education nor profession . I've always liked it as it follows intuition and it involves mechanics, while my mathematics skills are somewhere mediocre. So I usually limit my physics discussions to rationale and logic.... Anyway, I think I can add to such discussions in a positive way.

I do not have a FB profile so I couldn't check that FB link, but I did go through some of the content on other suggested forum. So far, I'm very glad that there is a group of people interested in exploring deeper into Mathis' work, can't understand though why Mathis wouldn't join the discussion and/or assist in further progress. I guess he's just into something else with more passion than discussing physics.

I am not sure this is so crazy or revolutionary yet. Saying 1 = 2 under "certain conditions" doesn't produce a new formula. Nor does it really make a joke of pi, which is still a pretty interesting constant. Maybe he just uses trolling sort of language to get our attention. I know we've been accused of the same, here.

It's a great observation, though! And perhaps quite overlooked! If he could perhaps cut right to the chase and say "velocities" are missing, which he finally gets to on page 5, then I think he'd have a more successful campaign to eliminate pi and Euclidean geometry from the school books.

But if anyone is underwhelmed by his marketing, we can't fault his enthusiasm! It reminds us of our own when we were looking at some of our own observations, clear from the messy propaganda misinformation, for the first time.

It's just that when he says things like:

In the late 1950s, the American program headed by Werner von Braun began admitting major equation failures. Rockets simply weren't where they were supposed to be, but only when curved trajectories were involved. The first rockets to orbit the earth were late by huge amounts, indicating the equations were wrong by something over 20%. The Russians found the same problem. In press releases, they indicated—and still indicate—the problem was with the propellants, but behind the scenes they pursued other possibilities. Just as they assign equation failures now to dark matter, in the 1960s they asked themselves if this rocket problem was caused by unknown ethers or forces of nature. As far as I know, they still haven't solved it. It never occurred to them that pi might be the problem. As it turns out, the failures in the rocket equations are exactly the same size as the gap between pi and 4.

... I would have loved to cure his allergy to forums and ask him to come to some serious understandings of in what "spheres" exactly the von Braun pranksters were playing. "Outer space" — for real? Or is it often the case that propagandists and State scientists exploit our misunderstandings by building their hoaxes around them — knowing full well that because nobody has answered the conundrums they have been studying (even hoarding), nobody would challenge their assertions and supposed accomplishments?

Not to bring absolutely everything around to fakery. I appreciate true advancements in math and science as Miles brings our attention to. But perhaps like some brilliant persons we know, social issues of various kinds are a barrier we need to acknowledge better. Miles later gives his typical self-esteem and victimhood a little boost:

They hired people to review my books who hadn't read them. They attacked my hair. They attacked my paintings. They attacked my poetry. They attacked me for having taken ballet in college.

Well, let's face it. Painting and poetry are difficult arts. Let's judge those on their own merits, Miles. Accomplishing science doesn't magically attract art fans, until perhaps you are a "celebrity" that attracts fans simply because other people are magnetized to you. But I understand why one's desperation for attention on important accomplishments (as this discovery may be!) can get mixed up with simple ego and desire for attention on more personal, artistic, subjective accomplishments.

I haven't seen his hair, but I'm sure it's lovely!

The bit about people falsely reviewing his books and slandering Miles, however, does ring true, unfortunately. We know how much the academic world responds to changes and shake ups. I think the Miles character, if he is real, needs to tone down his religious "fire and brimstone" rhetoric about the revolution, though (which takes up at least a full page of this pi7 paper). For example, he mixes up his absolute certainty that a great revolution will occur (a variation of which some at CluesForum perhaps more cautiously hope for?) with a slight misunderstanding of the idealism that scientists operate under:

This just confirms what I have said many times before: mainstream physics is now about milking money from the treasury, and real physics just isn't expensive enough. Basic experiments aren't run because it doesn't pay to run them. You can run this experiment yourself for under $100, so big physics departments and institutions aren't interested in it. It won't pay anyone's salary. It also doesn't pay because the result destroys decades and centuries of mainstream physics. Put simply, it isbad for business, or is thought to be

I think that may be true, but the truth is that basic experiments just like this video are constantly being run in high schools, universities and other institutions where experiments have gained popularity and are eventually spread to the world with calm, rational (if slowly dawning) understanding. The big experimenters are more interested in money and scams — sure. But we know why, and we need to express that. They're mainly, it seems, interested in materialistic/military application. So we can be sure while they are apparently slandering the discoveries Miles wants (and deserves) credit for (or those of Simon, when they are released) they will be using them. And contrary to what Miles says, I think it's definitely wise to be prepared for the possibility that they won't credit him, Simon or anyone else who genuinely changes our understanding of the world.

I don't think Miles' papers at their most ranting, and least concise, are a very wonderful model for spreading Miles' own information (though he claims to have many followers, which I suppose enjoy his egotist personality because it's kind of exciting and all that?) and I am not sure we have done much better with our own methods and maybe we need to all adopt the egotistical stance in order to change the world, if that's what the world truly respects for whatever reason. But if we can dig through and isolate the "gems", we might simplify and spread the good information better than he/it/them/etc.

It's said Newton was also a rather intolerable teacher himself, before he was totally bought. I worry that the personality Miles' papers model to us is the kind that is contented when promoted/absorbed by the criminal State in some way. Are these papers serious about peaceful revolution or would changing the world be just another tool to get attention on The Mathis?

For now I'll go ahead and state my suspicion that the purpose of MM is to get people arguing at length (or dare I say, for Miles?) about what the Math(is). I know I've had enough PI(e) filling to last me a lifetime from this character.

There's no way to know if he/it is authentic, but I'm unwilling to abandon my instincts. And those tell me there's something wrong here. I suppose time will tell if I'm right.

No offense to the MM fans here.

Note to Mods: please feel free to leave this here or move to the MM thread. The placement here in the "Chatbox" was by mistake.

For now I'll go ahead and state my suspicion that the purpose of MM is to get people arguing at length

I have to agree, I'm glad it's in the chatbox or I wouldn't have read it. I can't believe that thread exists here, it's so obvious. Ammunition for the shills and agents.

daddie_o wrote:Here is a guy who has offered elegant and compelling solutions to the mysteries of dark matter, superconductivity, wave-particle duality, quantum entanglement, the double-slit experiment, the Proton Radius Puzzle, the Pioneer anomaly and the Casimir effect, as well as explaining beta decay, neutrinos, nuclear magnetic resonance, Brownian motion, ice ages, the tides, the Meissner effect, major solar anomalies, celestial mechanics, etc. His theory explains why G (the gravitational constant) has the value it does (along with Planck's constant, the fine structure constant and a bunch of others), what causes gravity, why photons travel at c, why light is quantized, why E=mc2, why the mass of the electron is about 1820 times less than the mass of a proton ...

There is enough in that bag to nominate MWM for ten Nobel Prizes. Over the years, has any physicist with credentials and access to prestigious journals borrowed from this corpus to make it to fame and glory?

To borrow anything from Mathis would mean to accept and confirm that some parts of accepted physics are simply wrong (in postulates at least). And that consequently means this fragile house of cards is falling apart, which at the moment seems as it is about heresy - to admit being wrong / ignorant for centuries. I can recall 2 individuals from academia world, that tried to clarify and publish some contra-mainstream facts and got "burned as witches", meaning they both kissed goodbye their academic career. One is involved in physics, Steven J. Crothers, who refutes (b)lack holes being a mathematical construct based on division by zero (0) while postulating its theory (you can read his story here: http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/PhD.html ) , the other is involved in ethnic studies, Ward Churchill , who talks extensively on genocide and historical and legal (re)interpretation of conquest and colonization (I'm linking his essay that ultimately got him in the witch-hunt : http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/churchill.html ). There are most probably tens of such cases I'm just not aware of. Since the rest of academia world is conscious about the consequences of admitting and participating/assisting the truth to finally surface, they either seat still or they even take part in witch-hunt as per instructions (by whom? The usual suspects?). I'd say it is the latter, since the web of lies and obfuscations of truth is just beyond one's ability to comprehend it all, in the big picture.

Just when I registered, the topic about "Pi=4" has been closed, so I post my reaction here.

---------------

Hi all,

I have been reading this topic with interest and registered to add some thoughts about this “Pi=4” claim, Miles Mathis and the imho mistakes (deliberate or not) presented here.

First about Miles Mathis; I have read all his (?) articles about the hoaxes of history and many of them are new and about historical events that were either completely or partially hoaxed/faked/staged. I think Mathis has done a great job on those topics.

His articles about art I find much less interesting, so I skipped them.

The articles about his acclaimed “breakthroughs in science” are much harder to read and also those I have skipped for the most part.

It has been suggested that Mathis is not 1 person, but a collection of people. The basis for this idea was the “enormous” amount of text produced in a short time. That point may or may not convince, but in essence it is irrelevant for the work produced under the name Miles Mathis; it’s the content that counts. When I use “he” or “Miles Mathis” I leave the question if he is 1 person or a collective open.

Also his style in the hoax papers seems rather consistent. There are a couple of characteristics that “define” Mathis; he writes fast; the articles read as a page-turner, he always uses Wikipedia as a “source” or entry point, being the most accessed source of information for readers worldwide and the Wikipedia articles give away already so much just by reading them, and he has a certain style that comes back later in the “pi=4” assessment.

In the publications of Mathis I have read he accepts most, if not all, of the historical events twisted and turned, faked, staged, hoaxed, etc. Mathis accepts the Nuke Hoax, although his analysis doesn’t go in-depth and as far as I know it is not linked to his science work.

What I haven’t read of him, and hints to the contrary I have, is his stance on the Space Hoaxes. As far as I know he does not reject Space travel as a whole and has not published papers about it. If my idea is wrong; written in the science papers, please correct me with links to and direct quotes within his papers.

The “pi=4” claim is something Mathis presents as a breakthrough in science, but I want to point out some inconsistencies in that:

- pi is defined as ”describing the relation between the circumference of a circle and its diameter (or radius)”- this relation is circumference = 2*pi*r- additionally, pi also is related with the area of the circle as area = pi * r^2

The proponents of “pi=4” do not dispute this, yet point to a strange new situation:

- “pi=4 in kinematic situations”

Two questions:- Why would someone use the same symbol outside of its defined area and claim such a thing?- What is a kinematic situation?

The first question is analogous to the calorie, defined as “the approximate amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree Celsius at a pressure of one atmosphere”

What Mathis essentially is doing, is saying “Hello world, the calorie is not X but Y here in the Himalayas”; he steps outside of the realm of the definition to show the definition is “wrong”. This point has been discussed in the start of this thread, but was stepped over fast.

What Mathis lacks, and Kham and Simon have done in this topic, is using simple diagrams to explain things for the layman. Mathis, and VexMan and daddie_o follow that method, uses words to describe physics and that choice makes it much harder to understand what he is talking about.

I see that as a deliberate action to confuse; with the alleged intelligence of Mathis it shouldn’t be any problem to give a “step-by-step, well-explained graphic tutorial for dummies” to follow his idea of “pi=4 in kinematic situations”, yet he doesn’t do that.

The first in this topic who has done that was Simon with the train and billiard ball examples and the question he asked “please explain this to me” hasn’t been answered by the two proponents of Mathis’ claim; VexMan and daddie_o. Instead, people are referred to pages-long articles where that question isn’t answered either and the absence of such a basic step-by-step tutorial suggests that Mathis (and his proponents) want to keep the confusion high.

There are four major problems with the claim:1 - what is a kinematic situation?2 - the inconsistent use of that kinematic situation3 - the basis for Mathis’ idea4 - the widespread use and application of pi in kinematic situations

1 - if we take the circle drawn by Simon:

The circle is in rest/equilibrium/static. But what if we move the circle slightly, let’s say 1 billiard ball length. Then we have a kinematic situation. After that movement, the circle is static again.

If the claim “pi=4 in kinematic situations” [but pi=3.1415... in static situations/pure geometry] holds water, that would mean that “pi” jumps from 3.1415... in static situation 1 to “4” in the kinematic movement and back to 3.1415... in static situation 2 again.

How that could be is not explained by Miles Mathis and less in simple, unequivocal terms that leave no room for a page-long discussion. That smells of misdirection and deliberate confusion.

Ad hominem attacks as “you are lazy”, “you don’t want to read what Mathis writes” and “you believe physics cannot be wrong/faked” do not convince as they also avoid the very basic explanations that any scientific model should be able to provide.

2 - Mathis claims that pi=4 is only valid for kinematic situations, but at the same time tries to “prove” that using a static situation; the zig-zag pattern of the cube shown here:

If pi=4 is only correct in kinematics but not for static situations, one cannot use a static situation to prove that. This premise makes his claim dishonest; he is deliberately mixing situations.

3 - The whole basis of the idea that “pi=4 in kinematic situations” stems from an incredibly unconvincing source; Wernher von Braun (via another well-known liar; Richard C. Hoagland). What Mathis describes is that “rockets were pictured in the wrong place; 21% off” giving Mathis the insight to this idea and he presents us with long papers and lots of text why that would be.

The problem is that Wernher von Braun is an unreliable source for anything. Being the main proponent of faked Space Travel, his comments cannot be taken seriously.

Adding the absence of undeniable statements by Mathis about Space Travel, it suggests that he misdirects his readers; he takes Von Braun as a reliable source, does not dispute the rockets in space idea and concludes Von Braun was right.

The statement by Von Braun vs physics has 4 possible logical outcomes (“physics” refers only to this pi=4 point in this case; there is a lot of fake physics around, but that is not what this particular point and topic is about):

I think most of the editors of Cluesforum, and I share that stance, would choose C; Von Braun is an unreliable lying Disney hoaxer and “pi physics”(only on this pi=4 or 3.1415... point) is not disputed.Position D is also possible, but then Von Braun’s statement is useless as the basis of this whole physical kinematic pi=4 point; one should use another source for this idea and not Von Braun. As far as I know, Miles Mathis has failed to propose another source for his first hunch.

4 - This point has been highlighted by Seneca and was quickly wiped away, but it is a crucial point; if this pi=4 statement were true, and all calculations of circular motion are “21% off”, then that would have been discovered way before Mathis’ claim and by way more people than the small group who defend Mathis on this.

There are thousands of areas in engineering, science and technology where pi is used in kinematic and especially kinematic vs static situations. An error of 21% is so substantial that it would have been discovered by others, long before the first paper of Mathis in the late 2000s.

The problem is, if this 21% difference was unnoticed for centuries, then either every kinematic vs static situation would be consistently 21% off and thus go unnoticed, or, when more complex kinematic situations are combined with simple static situations or the other way around, the 21% margin would multiply or diminish; there would be differences larger or smaller than 21%.

Both situations would lead to people noticing it; a constant offset of 21% is clear for researchers who compare large data sets and differential offsets would show up too.

Yet, there are no others who have come up with this “error”, only Miles Mathis (and his followers) have.

Back to Mathis’ style in his hoax papers and the relation with this. When reading his hoax publications, a very characteristic rhetoric is used by Mathis; he first asks a -leading- question, and then immediately answers that. That is a very old trick to guide people towards a predefined conclusion. For the hoax papers, I don’t see a major problem with that, as the modus operandi of the hoaxsters indeed is very similar and that question is in many cases justified and the answer clear.

For this pi=4 topic it is not. It closes off all alternative viewpoints and that is seen both in Mathis’s reactions to critics as in the behavior of daddie_o and VexMan; “go along with this idea, else you are...<insert ad hominem>”

Two more points:- the “experiment” by Oostdijk- the confusing language “distance =/= length”

The experiment performed on video is not done in a proper, honest way. Different camera angles used, as described by bongostaple, smell of a deliberately confusing presentation. A good experiment doesn’t need this; it speaks for itself.

The confusing language “distance is not length” is also a deliberate misdirection imho. Distance is length when the path (kinematics) follows the line drawn (length). The only area where distance and length are not equal, is when one splits the distance into vectors (x, y in 2D).

But for the situation we are addressing here; the circle, distance = length. The distance traveled of a point on the edge of the circle cannot do anything else than to follow that circle.

When a point on the circle, or within the area of it, is chosen and then the whole circle is moved (kinematics) in a direction different from the circle (i.e.; draw a point on a frisbee and throw the frisbee; the distance that point travels is not equal to the length (circumference) of the frisbee), then one wouldn’t use the terms length and distance in that sense.

Also there I see a deliberate confusing mix-up between terms that cannot be mixed.

Concluding:- the premise for this pi=4 idea is wrong, because it is sourced by a known liar- the lack of a “graphical tutorial for dummies”, even after so many years, smells of misdirection and keeping people confused; the discussion and disagreements on this topic in this thread are evidence of that- the vague “definitions” of “kinematic situation” and “distance =/= length” smell of misdirection too- the personal attacks made by proponents of this idea do not convince of an honest, fair and reasonable civil stance

Personally I am still in doubt what to think of this all; is Mathis a very clever misdirecting controlled opposition figure/collective who write(s) great articles about all kinds of fakery in present and especially past but misdirects on “breakthroughs in science”?Or is he/are they just confused himself/themselves about the science and truly believe in this pi=4 in kinematics idea just as much as in the hoax work?

Time will tell.

Note that I am not name-calling VexMan or daddie_o as “deliberate misdirection”. I think they believe in Mathis’ claim and try to spread this message to the best of their ability.

One phrase used by daddie_o however is strange and untrue:

And since physics is applied math, if you aren't applying the math correctly you're going to get wrong answers.

Vera Obscurata » 10 Oct 2016, 20:35 wrote:In the publications of Mathis I have read he accepts most, if not all, of the historical events twisted and turned, faked, staged, hoaxed, etc. Mathis accepts the Nuke Hoax, although his analysis doesn’t go in-depth and as far as I know it is not linked to his science work.

What I haven’t read of him, and hints to the contrary I have, is his stance on the Space Hoaxes. As far as I know he does not reject Space travel as a whole and has not published papers about it. If my idea is wrong; written in the science papers, please correct me with links to and direct quotes within his papers.

I also haven't read anything that suggests that M.M. rejects space travel as a whole. I think he is aware of the Moon Hoax, without stating it directly. My feeling is that he wants to be accepted by the "scientists" that still believe NASA. For example, in his paper "The Nuclear Hoax" he made a few hints at fakery in the space program:

After the war ended, it was not expected that the inefficient Little Boy design would ever again be required, and many plans and diagrams were destroyed. What? Do you know how much the Manhattan project cost? Around 25 billion dollars. Does it make any sense that they would spend billions to build a successful nuclear device and then destroy the plans and diagrams? Actually this story reminds me of the story they told a few years ago, when some retired NASA investigators were looking for the original NASA footage of the Moon landing. They were told that NASA had lost it. As it turns out, NASA had actually erased and reused the tapes in the 1980s . I am not joking. To explain it, we are told NASA was facing a major tape shortage at the time. Oh well, I guess that makes it OK. We only spent around 100 billion on the Apollo project so who expects to have any permanent record of it? Word of mouth is good enough. Besides, they probably needed the tape space to record Battlestar Galatica, episodes.

If so, then why are all the images from Trinity the sort of garbage we have seen: grainy, blurry, shot,from a distance, and in 7/8 shadow? Why is Aeby's pathetic photo still trotted out? Why are the films of this quality? That film is 24 frames per second, not 10,000. Or this quality? There we are told the camera was capable of 15 million pictures per second. If so, why are the flms still crap,looking like balloon sequences pieced together in a lab? If that last link doesn't make you laugh,you really aren't getting the joke. Remember, we saw precisely this same sort of misdirection with the later Moon landings and the Kennedy assassination. With the Moon landing, we had to watch grainy, ghosted second- generation images, filmed from fickering monitors. With the Kennedy assassination, we had to study Zapruder's shite film shot with a Bell and Howell Zoomatic, although we now know professional cameramen were standing curbside during all the action.

Are you telling me that is 38 minutes before sunrise? Wow, the Moon must have been really bright back then, before the astronauts landed and painted it black.

Vera Obscurata » October 10th, 2016, 6:35 pm wrote:3 - The whole basis of the idea that “pi=4 in kinematic situations” stems from an incredibly unconvincing source; Wernher von Braun (via another well-known liar; Richard C. Hoagland). What Mathis describes is that “rockets were pictured in the wrong place; 21% off” giving Mathis the insight to this idea and he presents us with long papers and lots of text why that would be.

The problem is that Wernher von Braun is an unreliable source for anything. Being the main proponent of faked Space Travel, his comments cannot be taken seriously.

Holy crap.

Thanks so much for that, dear VO - this Von Braun / Hoagland 'connection' with MM's "Pi=4 discovery" had somehow entirely escaped my radar! Alright, folks - I will now plead guilty of 'unforgivable laziness' - in relation to my half-hearted, overly-selective readings of MM's papers. Shucks - I could have saved myself a lot of my (and everyone's) time if I'd only included "NASA" in my occasional searches around MM's website - *sigh* - so much to expose, so little time...

Seneca wrote:

Seneca wrote:I also haven't read anything that suggests that M.M. rejects space travel as a whole.

Dear Seneca, I'm afraid that it's far, far worse than that:

Not only does our Miles "Math-IS" clearly embrace space travel as a whole - he / it actually bases his "math-&-physics revisions" upon old NASA hokum !

Just read this (tragicomical) MM paper - and you'll hopefully see what I mean :

"Those who have found my paper on π to be shocking will find this one even more shocking. Here I will show that NASA’s own rockets have provided simple proof of my assertion concerning π, and have been providing it since 1958, the year of the first successful orbit."

That does it for me, folks. I'm done with this MM science clown - for good. No wonder MM shuns this forum like the plague.

That is interesting. Could this finally be evidence that there are at least 2 people writing under the name Miles Mathis? One recognizing the moon landings were faked, intelligent, funny. The other just desperate to be believed (pi=4), disregarding the possibility of fakery.